Say: “Bring your proof, if ye are truthful.”

Qur’an 27:64

Among those who have renounced Islam, it is widely held that the best way to help Muslims is to liberate them from the shackles of their religion. A crucial part of this endeavour is to shatter the myth of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an, i.e. that the text is a work of such supreme excellence that it could only have come from Allah, the Almighty. Such is the purpose of this article: to demonstrate that the Qur’an, being riddled with contradictions, is but the product of Muhammad’s own mind, exposing the limitations thereof.

In the main, we will derive our examples from My Ordeal with the Qur’an and Allah in the Qur’an by Abbas Abdul Noor, translated by Hassan Radwan. Noor, an Egyptian author and once a prominent scholar of Sufism, came to renounce Islam in his seventies after a lifelong battle with doubts. “To my horror,” Noor writes, “God’s answer was the opposite of what I begged him for.” His book is both a devastating critique of the Qur’an and an impassioned plea for Muslims to throw off the chains of orthodoxy. In his words:

The Qur’an remains a stumbling block to our full participation in the progress and changes mankind has made in recent history. Whereas the West has witnessed a revolution in the way holy texts are perceived, releasing them from their shackles and separating church from state, we have been completely unable to change the way we view our holy text, and have been left stranded. The contrast between a secular society that is dynamic, free, and open to change, and a society that is backward, stagnant, and one that, apart from just doing the same things and repeating itself, is idle, is a truly disgraceful and shameful state of affairs. While the classical stage of our history was dynamic and potent, able to give and take, create and innovate, investigate and examine, our present stage is characterised by apathy, stagnation, and blind, regressive fundamentalism that is not proficient in anything apart from the language of intolerance, violence, blood and death. This language is taking us deeper into the darkness.

But of course, the contradictions which abound in the Qur’an are just one reason to doubt its divine authorship. The discontinuity and variant readings, the grammatical and scientific errors – all of these combine to reveal the book’s artificial origin. In a future piece, we may explore these issues with reference to the works of Ibn Rawandi, Al-Razi, and other titans of apostasy. For now, we will content ourselves with 20 examples of Qur’anic contradictions. With any luck, this effort will prove to be an effective antidote to Muslim bibliolatry.

*****

1: The source of evil

In verse 4:78, it is stated that all things, both good and evil, are from Allah:

If some good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah”; but if evil, they say, “This is from thee” (O Prophet). Say: “All things are from Allah.” But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?

But in the verse which immediately follows, the Qur’an states that only good comes from Allah, while evil comes from man:

Whatever good, (O man!) happens to thee, is from Allah; but whatever evil happens to thee, is from thy (own) soul. And We have sent thee as a messenger to (instruct) mankind. And enough is Allah for a witness.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the verses are not contradictory but complementary. Verse 4:78 highlights Allah’s sovereignty over everything, including the occurrence of good and evil as part of His divine will. In contrast, verse 4:79 shifts focus to human accountability, emphasising that evil is a consequence of human actions due to their free will. Allah’s role as the ultimate Creator does not negate human moral responsibility; rather, the verses together underscore the interplay between divine decree (qadar) and human agency.

Counter-Argument:

This interpretation does not resolve the underlying contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Verse 4:78 affirms that all outcomes — good and evil — are from Allah, implying divine preordination. Yet verse 4:79 shifts blame for evil onto human free will. If all things ultimately occur by Allah’s will, then human agency is illusory, and moral accountability is undermined. The attempt to reconcile divine omnipotence with genuine human freedom remains logically inconsistent.

*****

2: The will of Allah

In verse 6:148, the Qur’an rebukes the Meccan polytheists for arguing that if Allah had wanted them to abandon idolatry, he would have made it so. It challenges them to bring forth evidence for this claim, and accuses them of lying:

Those who give partners (to Allah) will say: “If Allah had wished, we should not have given partners to Him nor would our fathers; nor should we have had any taboos.” So did their ancestors argue falsely, until they tasted of Our wrath. Say: “Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us. Ye follow nothing but conjecture; ye do nothing but lie.”

And yet, in the very next verse, the Qur’an makes this same argument. It states explicitly that if it had been the will of Allah, the polytheists would have been guided:

Say: “With Allah is the argument that reaches home. If it had been His will, He could indeed have guided you all.”

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars contend that these verses address different aspects of divine will and human responsibility. Verse 6:148 rebukes the polytheists for invoking divine will to shirk their moral accountability, emphasising that their idolatry stems from conjecture and choice rather than divine compulsion. Verse 6:149 acknowledges Allah’s absolute power and sovereignty, affirming that His will ultimately prevails, but without negating human free will. Together, the verses underline that while Allah permits human misguidance as part of His divine plan, He does not compel individuals to sin.

Counter-Argument:

Despite scholarly efforts to distinguish the focus of these verses, the tension between them remains unresolved. Verse 6:148 rebukes the polytheists for attributing their idolatry to Allah’s will — yet verse 6:149 affirms that their misguidance occurs by that very will. This raises a clear dilemma: if Allah permits their error, how can they be blamed for it?

The claim that humans freely choose misguidance, while Allah remains the ultimate orchestrator, creates a paradox. If divine will governs all outcomes, including sin, human moral responsibility becomes incoherent. The idea that Allah “permits” rather than “compels” evil does little to resolve the issue, as both imply divine involvement. This ambiguity challenges the consistency of the Qur’an’s depiction of justice, leaving unresolved how genuine free will can exist under absolute divine sovereignty.

*****

3: The Jews

In the Qur’an, the Jews are described in multiple instances as God’s chosen people:

O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message). [2:47]

O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures. [2:122]

However, in other verses, the Jews are rebuked for making this very same claim:

Say (O Muhammad): “O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful.” [62:6]

The Jews and Christians say: “We are sons of Allah and His loved ones.” Say: “Why then doth He chastise you for your sins? Nay, ye are but mortals of His creating. He forgiveth whom He will, and chastiseth whom He will. Allah’s is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the journeying.” [5:18]

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the Qur’anic portrayal of the Jews as “chosen” (2:47, 2:122) refers specifically to their historical role as recipients of divine guidance and messengers. This status was contingent upon their obedience to the commandments of Allah. Verses 62:6 and 5:18, on the other hand, critique the Jews for abusing this status to claim superiority or immunity from accountability. These verses emphasise that Allah’s favour depends on righteousness, not ancestry, and rebuke the Jews for failing to live up to their covenant with Allah.

Counter-Argument:

The scholarly claim that the Jews’ “chosen” status is conditional fails to resolve the tension in the Qur’anic narrative. Verses 2:47 and 2:122 describe divine favour and preference without linking it to obedience, suggesting an enduring status. In contrast, verses like 62:6 and 5:18 rebuke the Jews for asserting this very status, casting doubt on whether it was ever legitimate.

This creates a paradox: the Jews are both affirmed as uniquely favoured and condemned for claiming to be so. If divine favour is conditional, then what justified their selection in the first place? The Qur’an’s portrayal thus leaves the concept of being “chosen” ambiguous, and undermines the coherence of divine justice by mixing unconditional election with conditional accountability.

*****

4: The Day of Judgement

In verses 11:106-107, the Qur’an states that on the Day of Judgement, the wretched will be sent to hell and abide therein for as long as the heavens and Earth endure:

As for those who will be wretched (on that day) they will be in the Fire; sighing and wailing will be their portion therein, abiding there so long as the heavens and the earth endure save for that which thy Lord willeth. Lo! Thy Lord is Doer of what He will.

However, according to verse 21:104, the heavens and Earth are set to be rolled up on the Day of Judgement:

The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.

How can Allah send people to stay in hell for as long as the heavens and Earth exist, when they have already ceased to exist?

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the phrase “as long as the heavens and the earth endure” in verses 11:106-107 is metaphorical, denoting an unimaginably long duration rather than a literal dependence on the heavens and Earth. The subsequent clause, “save for that which thy Lord willeth”, emphasises Allah’s absolute control over the duration of punishment, transcending physical constructs like the heavens and Earth. Verse 21:104, describing the rolling up of the heavens, signifies a transformative event marking the end of the temporal universe and the establishment of an eternal, metaphysical realm where hell and paradise exist independently of earthly time and space.

Counter-Argument:

The scholarly claim that “as long as the heavens and the earth endure” is metaphorical weakens the clarity of the text. The Qur’an often uses this phrase literally to denote long but finite durations, making its metaphorical reinterpretation here seem ad hoc. If the heavens and Earth are to be rolled up on the Day of Judgement (21:104), it i’s unclear how their continued “endurance” can serve as a measure for eternal punishment.

The added clause — “save for what thy Lord willeth” — is presented as a safeguard for divine will, yet it further obscures the meaning rather than resolving the contradiction. Invoking a speculative metaphysical realm to bridge the gap between temporal and eternal existence lacks textual grounding and introduces ambiguity into the Qur’an’s cosmological framework. The tension between these verses suggests an inconsistency in how the afterlife is described and undermines the coherence of the Qur’anic narrative.

*****

5: Whom Allah guides

In verse 16:104, the Qur’an states that Allah will not guide those who do not believe in his signs:

Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah – Allah will not guide them, and theirs will be a grievous Penalty.

This contradicts the many other verses where Allah guides the unbelievers to Islam:

They impress on thee as a favour that they have embraced Islam. Say, “Count not your Islam as a favour upon me: Nay, Allah has conferred a favour upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if ye be true and sincere.” [49:17]

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided. [3:103]

It is no crime in you if ye seek of the bounty of your Lord (during pilgrimage). Then when ye pour down from (Mount) Arafat, celebrate the praises of Allah at the Sacred Monument, and celebrate His praises as He has directed you, even though, before this, ye went astray. [2:198]

Indeed, it is a simple fact that the majority of those who embraced Islam in Muhammad’s time would have formerly been polytheists. But according to verse 16:104, Allah does not guide the unbelievers. Who guided these people, then – Satan?

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that verse 16:104 refers specifically to those unbelievers who persistently reject Allah’s signs despite clear evidence and sincere invitations to faith. These individuals, by their own obstinacy, render themselves unworthy of guidance. In contrast, verses 49:17, 3:103 and 2:198 address those who, while previously astray, were open to accepting truth when it was presented to them. Allah’s guidance is contingent on human receptivity; He does not guide those who close their hearts, but He favours those willing to accept His guidance.

Counter-Argument:

The claim that 16:104 refers only to persistently obstinate disbelievers is not clearly supported by the text. The verse states plainly that “Allah will not guide” those who disbelieve in His signs, without qualifications. Yet many converts to Islam in Muhammad’s time were formerly polytheists — by definition, disbelievers in Allah’s signs.

Moreover, the Qur’an repeatedly asserts that guidance and misguidance are ultimately determined by Allah’s will (e.g. 14:4, 35:8). This undermines the notion that individuals can block divine guidance purely through personal obstinacy. If Allah alone guides whom He wills, then distinguishing between “deserving” and “undeserving” unbelievers appears arbitrary and theologically inconsistent.

This tension exposes a deeper ambiguity in the Qur’anic concept of guidance: it affirms both divine sovereignty over belief and human accountability for disbelief, without clearly reconciling the two.

*****

6: The inhabitants of hell

In verse 17:97, the dwellers of hell are described as blind, dumb, and deaf:

It is he whom Allah guides, that is on true Guidance; but he whom He leaves astray – for such wilt thou find no protector besides Him. On the Day of Judgement, We shall gather them together, prone on their faces, blind, dumb, and deaf: their abode will be Hell: every time it shows abatement, We shall increase from them the fierceness of the Fire.

This contradicts other verses, wherein the inhabitants of hell talk to each other, disown one another, and beg those in heaven for help:

(On the day) when those who were followed disown those who followed (them), and they behold the doom, and all their aims collapse with them. And those who were but followers will say: “If a return were possible for us, we would disown them even as they have disowned us.” Thus will Allah show them their own deeds as anguish for them, and they will not emerge from the Fire. [2:166-167]

The Companions of the Fire will call to the Companions of the Garden: “Pour down to us water or anything that Allah doth provide for your sustenance.” They will say: “Both these things hath Allah forbidden to those who rejected Him.” [7:50]

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the descriptions of the inhabitants of hell as “blind, dumb, and deaf” in verse 17:97 are metaphorical, signifying their spiritual condition rather than physical incapacity. These terms illustrate their total inability to perceive truth, plead effectively, or escape divine justice. In verses 2:166-167 and 7:50, the ability of the inhabitants of hell to speak and interact reflects a different aspect of their punishment – emotional torment through regret and futile appeals. Together, these descriptions portray the multifaceted suffering of hell: spiritual blindness and helplessness alongside physical and emotional agony.

Counter-Argument:

Reading “blind, dumb, and deaf” in verse 17:97 as purely metaphorical introduces ambiguity, especially since these terms also appear in the Qur’an to describe physical conditions. If they are metaphorical here, it becomes unclear whether the punishment involves literal sensory deprivation or symbolic spiritual incapacity.

This interpretation also clashes with other verses that depict the damned speaking, expressing regret, and pleading with the saved — actions incompatible with being truly blind, mute, and deaf. Without a consistent method for distinguishing literal from figurative language, these contrasting depictions create an interpretive tension that undermines the clarity and coherence of the Qur’anic portrayal of hell.

*****

 7: Previous warners

In verse 35:24, it is stated that every nation prior to Muhammad was sent a warner from Allah:

Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner hath passed among them.

This contradicts verse 25:51, which implies that Allah refrained from doing so:

And had We willed, We would have raised a warner in every town.

To be clear, the words ‘nation’ (أمة) and ‘town’ (مدینة) have the same meaning in the Qur’an. They mean a sedentary group that resides in a particular place where it seeks its living and sustenance. In fact, they are also applied to transient groups that are non-sedentary, such as in verse 28:23:

And when he arrived at the watering (place) in Madyan, he found there a group [أمة] of men watering (their flocks), and besides them he found two women who were keeping back (their flocks).

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars reconcile these verses by interpreting them in the context of divine wisdom and decree. Verse 35:24 affirms the general principle that Allah has always sent a warner to every nation, reflecting His justice and mercy in providing guidance. However, verse 25:51 emphasises Allah’s will and discretion in the matter, suggesting that had He chosen, He could have sent warner after warner to every town, but in His wisdom, He chose specific times, places, and peoples for His messengers. The statement in 25:51 does not contradict the general message of 35:24, but rather highlights Allah’s absolute power and sovereignty.

Counter-Argument:

The appeal to divine discretion fails to resolve the contradiction. Verse 35:24 clearly states that every nation received a warner, while verse 25:51 suggests Allah could have sent warners to every town but chose not to. These two ideas are logically incompatible: either every community was warned, or some were not.

Invoking Allah’s wisdom does not explain this inconsistency — it merely defers it. If Allah’s justice involves warning every nation, then verse 25:51 implies a lapse in that justice. Without a clearer rationale for this selective guidance, the verses remain in tension, undermining the Qur’an’s internal coherence.

*****

8: Jonah (Yunus)

In verses 37:139-146, the Qur’an describes how Allah cast the prophet Jonah (Yunus) onto the shore:

So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us).

When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden,

He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was condemned:

Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame.

Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah,

He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection.

But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness,

And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind.

However, in verses 68:48-49, we are told that Allah’s grace saved Jonah from being cast onto the shore in disgrace:

So wait with patience for the Command of thy Lord, and be not like the Companion of the Fish – when he cried out in agony. Had not Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore, in disgrace.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that these verses are not in contradiction, but rather complement each other by focusing on different aspects of Jonah’s story. In verses 37:139-146, the emphasis is on Jonah’s repentance and Allah’s mercy, as he is cast onto the shore after being swallowed by the fish, experiencing illness as part of his purification. In verses 68:48-49, the phrase “in disgrace” refers to the potential for further humiliation had Jonah not repented and received Allah’s grace. The two accounts together depict Jonah’s redemption: he was cast onto the shore, but avoided disgrace because of Allah’s mercy after his repentance.

Counter-Argument:

The claim that Jonah was cast onto the shore but not in disgrace strains credibility. In 37:139–146, Jonah is portrayed as fleeing, being swallowed by a fish, and later cast ashore sick and dependent on divine aid — an undeniably humiliating sequence tied to his disobedience. Calling this anything other than disgrace is evasive.

Verse 68:49 says that, without Allah’s grace, Jonah would have been cast off “in disgrace.” But according to 37:145–146, he was cast off in weakness and illness. To say this was not disgraceful is to impose an arbitrary distinction between physical humiliation and moral disgrace.

Rather than resolving the tension, the interpretive effort shifts the contradiction: from whether Jonah was cast off, to whether his casting was disgraceful. This rhetorical maneuver only obscures the fact that the verses are fundamentally at odds.

*****

9: The justice of Allah

In verses 37:22-23, the Qur’an states that on the Day of Judgement, the wrongdoers will be held accountable for their actions:

Allah will say to the angels, “Gather all the wrongdoers along with their peers, and whatever they used to worship instead of Allah, then lead them all to the path of Hell.”

However, in verse 16:93, we are told that Allah is responsible for sending people astray:

Had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He sendeth whom He will astray and guideth whom He will, and ye will indeed be asked of what ye used to do.

Needless to say, it is a mockery of justice for Allah to punish those whom he causes to go astray. To quote verse 18:49:

And your Lord does injustice to no one.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that Allah’s justice is not compromised because His guidance and misguidance are in accordance with His divine wisdom, justice, and human free will. In verses 37:22-23, the wrongdoers are held accountable for their actions because they consciously chose to reject Allah’s divine guidance. The fact that Allah may allow some people to be misled (16:93) does not contradict His justice, because those who go astray do so as a result of their own rejection of truth. Allah’s justice is understood in the context of His granting free will to humanity, and those who go astray do so by their own decision, not by forced decree.

Counter-Argument:

The claim that those who go astray do so by their own choice collapses under the weight of verse 16:93, which states that Allah actively sends whom He wills astray. If divine will determines who is misled, then the notion of free will becomes hollow. It is incoherent to argue that individuals are fully responsible for choices shaped by a will higher than their own.

This creates a moral contradiction: Allah punishes people for a condition He Himself imposed, despite verse 18:49’s insistence that He commits no injustice. The tension between divine predestination and human accountability remains unresolved, casting doubt on the coherence of Qur’anic justice.

*****

10: A clear Qur’an

In verse 15:1, the Qur’an is described as being clear or unambiguous:

These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur’an.

However, in verse 3:7, we are told that only Allah knows the meaning of some verses:

But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argues that while the Qur’an is described as “clear” in verse 15:1, this clarity refers to its fundamental message and guidance, which is straightforward and accessible to those who seek understanding. In contrast, verse 3:7 acknowledges that some verses are allegorical and cannot be fully understood except by Allah. The presence of both clear and allegorical verses in the Qur’an does not negate its overall clarity; rather, it reflects the complexity of divine revelation, where some meanings are accessible to human understanding while others remain beyond our comprehension, intended to challenge the mind or inspire deeper reflection.

Counter-Argument:

This explanation fails to resolve the tension between the Qur’an’s proclaimed clarity and its inclusion of cryptic elements. While scholars assert that the Qur’an’s fundamental message is clear, the inclusion of allegorical verses implies that certain aspects of the message are inaccessible to the general reader. Attempting to reconcile this tension by arguing that some verses are intentionally mysterious only deepens the ambiguity. If the Qur’an is meant to be a clear guide for humanity, as stated in verse 15:1, then the presence of verses that cannot be fully understood raises questions about the accessibility and comprehensibility of the divine message.

*****

11: Jesus (Isa)

In verse 4:157, the Qur’an describes how Allah placed the likeness of Jesus on another man, thus deceiving people into believing that he had been crucified:

And (for) their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but (another) was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Yet, in verse 3:85, the Qur’an states that Christians will be losers in the afterlife for not following Islam – in other words, for believing in Allah’s Jesus deception:

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that verse 4:157 does not imply that Allah deceived people in a morally problematic way, but rather that the crucifixion of Jesus was part of a divine plan to correct misunderstandings. The Qur’an refutes the claim that Jesus was crucified, showing that those who believed so were mistaken, not intentionally deceived. Regarding verse 3:85, the loss mentioned is not a result of believing in the crucifixion, but rather rejecting Islam. Islam teaches that Jesus, as a prophet of Allah, is part of a continuous message leading to Muhammad, and that those who reject this are in error and will face consequences in the afterlife.

Counter-Argument:

Claiming Allah merely “allowed a misunderstanding” in 4:157 understates the issue: the verse explicitly says someone was made to resemble Jesus, leading generations to wrongly believe in the crucifixion. That is not passive error — it is active deception. Yet, 3:85 condemns those misled by this divine act to eternal loss for failing to accept Islam.

This raises a troubling inconsistency: Allah creates the illusion, then punishes people for believing it. To say they’re condemned for “rejecting Islam” sidesteps the core problem — many reject Islam precisely because they believe in the crucifixion, a belief Allah Himself orchestrated. This undermines claims of divine justice and theological coherence.

*****

12: The creation of man

In the Qur’an, Allah appears to be very confused about how he created humans. Verse 3:59 states that Adam, the first man, was created out of dust:

The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be.” And he was.

However, verse 15:26 states that man was made from clay:

We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape.

Then we have verse 19:67, which states that he was created out of nothing:

But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?

Then there is verse 21:30, which states that every living thing was made from water:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Finally, verses 96:1-2 state that man was created from a blood clot:

Recite: In the Name of thy Lord who created, created Man of a blood-clot.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the different descriptions of human creation in the Qur’an reflect various stages or aspects of the creation process, rather than contradictory accounts. Verse 3:59 refers to the initial creation of Adam, symbolising the simplicity of the divine act (“dust”). Verse 15:26 uses “clay” to convey the malleability and shape of Adam’s form. Verse 19:67 underscores the creation of humanity from nothing, pointing to God’s absolute creative power. The reference to water in 21:30 and the blood clot in 96:1-2 describe the biological development of human life, particularly in the womb. Thus, these verses are complementary and reflect the multifaceted nature of creation from both divine and physical perspectives.

Counter-Argument:

The claim that these verses describe different stages of creation is speculative and unsupported by the text itself. The Qur’an offers no indication that terms like “dust,” “clay,” “nothing,” “water,” and “blood clot” refer to sequential phases. Instead, these appear as standalone descriptions of human origin, presented without context or clarification.

The contradictions are stark: Adam is said to be created from dust (3:59), clay (15:26), and nothing (19:67), while humans in general are said to come from water (21:30) and a blood clot (96:2). These aren’t nuances — they are incompatible accounts. Attempting to harmonize them post hoc only highlights the inconsistency and undermines the Qur’an’s claim to clarity and coherence.

*****

13: The word of Allah

In multiple verses of the Qur’an, it is stated that the word of Allah cannot change, for he guards his revelations against corruption:

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). [15:9]

The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. [6:115]

And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him. [18:27]

However, verse 2:75 describes how a group of Jewish rabbis used to change the words of the Torah:

Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (Torah), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?

Additionally, in verse 3:78, Allah condemns those who distort his scripture:

And lo! There is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: “It is from Allah”, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.

Furthermore, verse 16:101 states that Allah exchanges one verse for another at will:

And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse – and God knows very well what He is sending down – they say, “Thou art a mere forger!” Nay, but most of them have no knowledge.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars explain these verses by distinguishing between the divine preservation of Allah’s word and human interference. Verses 6:115 and 18:27 affirm that Allah’s eternal decrees and the Qur’an cannot be altered by humans, as explicitly promised in 15:9. In contrast, verses 2:75 and 3:78 describe how earlier revelations like the Torah were distorted in their interpretation or transmission by individuals, not in their original divine form. Verse 16:101 refers to abrogation (naskh), where Allah replaces one Qur’anic verse with another, reflecting His wisdom in revealing guidance gradually to suit changing contexts, without contradicting His ultimate truth.

Counter-Argument:

This interpretation raises several issues. If Allah’s word is unalterable, as affirmed in verses 6:115, 18:27 and 15:9, why were earlier revelations like the Torah and Gospel allowed to be distorted? This is inconsistent with the promise of preservation, suggesting either a limitation in divine will or a shift in priority.

The explanation that earlier scriptures remain uncorrupted in their “original divine form”, but were distorted in their interpretation or transmission, creates a practical problem: if the original form is inaccessible, how can we reliably discern Allah’s uncorrupted word from human distortions? The divine preservation of an inaccessible text serves no functional purpose for believers, undermining the claim’s theological and epistemological value.

Finally, the doctrine of abrogation (16:101) directly contradicts the claim that Allah’s words cannot change. Swapping one verse for another — regardless of the motive — still constitutes change. That scholars justify this as divine wisdom doesn’t resolve the contradiction; it only highlights the tension between an unchanging word and a changeable message.

*****

14: The first Muslim

In multiple instances, the Qur’an states that Muhammad is the first Muslim, i.e. one who surrenders to Allah:

Say: “Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed?” Say: “I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him).” And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. (6:14)

Say: “Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims.” (6:162-163)

However, according to verses 2:130-132, Abraham (Ibrahim) and his sons preceded Muhammad in being Muslims, followed by Jacob (Yaqoub):

And who forsakes the religion of Ibrahim but he who makes himself a fool, and most certainly We chose him in this world, and in the hereafter he is most surely among the righteous. When his Lord said to him, “Be a Muslim”, he said: “I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.” And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O my sons! Surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the description of Muhammad as the “first Muslim” (6:14, 6:162-163) specifically refers to him as the first among his people (the Arabs) to submit to Allah’s will and proclaim the monotheistic faith in its final form. This does not contradict the earlier submission of Ibrahim (Abraham) and his descendants (2:130-132), as those prophets were part of an earlier covenant, and their submission was based on the faith of their time. The phrase “first Muslim” is understood in the context of the message brought by Muhammad, which is the culmination of the monotheistic tradition, rather than a literal first in chronological terms.

Counter-Argument:

The explanation that Muhammad’s designation as the “first Muslim” (6:14, 6:162–163) refers to him being the first among the Arabs, or the first to submit in the context of Islam’s final dispensation, imposes a contextual limitation not found in the text. The verses do not specify any such qualifier — the language is universal, not restricted.

This reading becomes especially problematic when compared with verses 2:130–132, which clearly describe Abraham, his sons, and Jacob as Muslims long before Muhammad. If they were already Muslims, then Muhammad cannot be the first in any absolute sense. Redefining “first” to fit a theological framework is not a resolution but a workaround. It introduces ambiguity where the Qur’an appears to speak definitively and undermines the idea of Islam as a single, continuous tradition from Abraham to Muhammad.

*****

15: Intercession

In verse 39:44, the Qur’an states that all intercession belongs to Allah, i.e. that only Allah has the power to intercede on behalf of someone:

Say: “To Allah belongs all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, then to Him you shall be brought back.”

However, verse 2:255 suggests that certain individuals can intercede with Allah’s permission:

Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?

Scholarly Objection:

To resolve this apparent contradiction, Islamic scholars argue that while intercession belongs to Allah alone (39:44), He grants permission for certain individuals to intercede on behalf of others, as stated in verse 2:255. The key difference is that intercession does not occur without Allah’s explicit permission. Allah is the ultimate authority over intercession, but He allows it to take place through those He designates, such as Muhammad or other righteous individuals, under His control and command.

Counter-Argument:

The scholarly explanation attempts to resolve the contradiction by claiming that Allah allows others to intercede only with His permission. However, this creates a theological tension rather than resolving it. Verse 39:44 states categorically that intercession belongs to Allah alone, implying that no one else shares in this function. In contrast, verse 2:255 introduces the idea of delegated intercession, suggesting that others may play a role — albeit a permitted one.

This conditional allowance undermines the exclusivity asserted in 39:44. If intercession can be granted to others, then it no longer belongs solely to Allah in practice, even if He remains the gatekeeper. The text offers no clear criteria for how or when such permission is given, leaving the nature of intercession — and Allah’s absolute sovereignty — ambiguous and inconsistent.

*****

16: Intoxicants and gambling

In verse 2:219, the Qur’an acknowledges both good and evil in wine and gambling, but discourages their use:

They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: “In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.”

Further, verse 4:43 prohibits Muslims from approaching prayer while drunk, implying that alcohol use outside of prayer was acceptable:

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed.

However, in verses 5:90-91, Allah summarily declares intoxicants and gambling to be abominations and strictly prohibits them:

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars generally interpret the Qur’anic narrative regarding intoxicants and gambling as reflecting a gradual shift in guidance. The verses 2:219 and 4:43 indicate a recognition of the harm and sinfulness in these activities, but allow for their use under certain circumstances, such as outside of prayer or in moderation. However, the final prohibition in verses 5:90-91 is seen as a definitive ban, making it clear that these behaviours are now entirely prohibited due to their negative social and spiritual consequences. This progression aligns with the principle that Islamic law often evolves toward greater prohibitions for the well-being of individuals and society.

Counter-Argument:

The explanation that the Qur’an’s stance on intoxicants and gambling evolved gradually fails to reconcile the inconsistency. If these practices are ultimately condemned as abominations (5:90–91), why were they previously acknowledged as having some benefit (2:219) or tolerated outside of prayer (4:43)? If Allah were truly “The All-Knowing” (Al-’Aleem), he would not need to revise moral directives over time. The shift resembles a pragmatic, human strategy — not the timeless wisdom of a divine lawgiver.

Moreover, this principle of gradual prohibition is not consistently applied to other major sins in the Qur’an, making the rationale for this progression arbitrary. This inconsistency undermines claims of moral clarity and divine perfection.

*****

17: Peace vs. violence

In verses 109:1-6, Allah instructs Muhammad to issue a message of peace and tolerance to those who disbelieve in Islam:

Say: “O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”

However, in verse 9:5, Allah commands Muslims to kill the polytheists until they repent and convert to Islam:

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them (go) on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Furthermore, verse 9:29 orders Muslims to fight the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizyah and are brought low:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars generally interpret the contradiction between verses 109:1-6 and 9:5, 9:29 as context-specific guidance. Verses 109:1-6, with its message of peace and tolerance, refers to a period when Muslims were in a position of weakness or peaceful coexistence with disbelievers, calling for dialogue and non-aggression. On the other hand, verses 9:5 and 9:29 were revealed in the context of conflict or when the early Muslim community was under threat, calling for defensive action. In this sense, these verses reflect different stages of the Islamic community’s experience and are not seen as contradictory, but as directives for different circumstances.

Counter-Argument:

The contextual explanation for verses 109:1-6 and 9:5, 9:29 attempts to resolve contradictions, but introduces significant philosophical and ethical challenges. If these verses are bound by specific historical circumstances, it undermines the claim of the Qur’an’s timeless and universal moral teachings. Conversely, if they are timeless, reconciling the call for peaceful coexistence with explicit calls for aggression remains deeply problematic.

Furthermore, interpreting verses like 9:5 and 9:29 as situational creates dangerous ambiguity about their contemporary relevance. Who determines when Muslims are “under threat” or what qualifies as “defensive action”? Without clear and universally accepted criteria, this ambiguity opens the door to offensive warfare and terrorism in the name of self-defence.

Finally, if the peaceful message contained in verses 109:1-6 is contingent upon Muslim vulnerability, it raises doubts about its sincerity. Rather than a principle of tolerance, it appears more as a strategic concession made in the face of a power imbalance, further complicating the ethical foundation of these verses.

*****

18: The order of creation

In verses 41:9-11, the Qur’an states that the Earth was created first, followed by the heavens:

Say, “Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds.”

And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its (creatures’) sustenance in four days without distinction – for (the information) of those who ask.

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, “Come (into being), willingly or by compulsion.” They said, “We have come willingly.”

However, verses 79:27-30 state that the heavens were created first, followed by the Earth:

Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it. He raised its ceiling and proportioned it. And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness. And after that He spread the earth.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars commonly reconcile the contradiction between verses 41:9-11 and 79:27-30 by arguing that they describe creation from different perspectives. In the former, the focus is on the creation of the Earth and its features, including the establishment of its mountains and sustenance. The sequence of events described relates to the physical development and preparation of the Earth before the creation of the heavens, which are then brought into being. The latter set of verses (79:27-30) describes the creation of the heavens in a broader cosmic sense, beginning with the formation of the heavens before the Earth was spread out.

Counter-Argument:

The scholarly claim that verses 41:9–11 and 79:27–30 offer “different perspectives” on creation fails to resolve the core issue: both passages clearly describe a temporal sequence, and those sequences contradict each other. In 41:9–11, Earth is created before the heavens; in 79:27–30, the heavens come first. This is not a matter of focus or emphasis, but of conflicting chronology.

Moreover, the “perspective” explanation is not found in the Qur’an itself — it is a retrospective attempt to reconcile an inconsistency. Without textual evidence for this interpretive layer, the contradiction remains unresolved and undermines claims of Qur’anic consistency.

*****

19: Apostasy

In verse 2:256, the Qur’an declares that there is no compulsion in religion:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

However, verse 4:89 commands Muslims to kill those who turn away from Islam:

But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars attempt to reconcile these verses by emphasizing that verse 2:256 refers to the freedom of belief and the rejection of forced conversion, which is a principle of peaceful coexistence. They interpret this verse as promoting individual choice in faith, asserting that faith must be freely chosen to be sincere. In contrast, verse 4:89, which addresses apostasy, is interpreted as referring to cases of treason or rebellion during a time of war, particularly when individuals who had converted to Islam later betrayed the Muslim community by allying with enemies. Thus, the command to kill apostates could be seen as related to political or military defection, not simply changing one’s religion.

Counter-Argument:

The attempt to reconcile verses 2:256 and 4:89 is unconvincing. Verse 4:89 makes no clear distinction between political treason and simple religious apostasy — it commands the killing of those who “turn away,” without qualification. This lack of distinction means that the verse could be interpreted as applying to any individual who leaves Islam, whether for religious or political reasons, without the clear contextual limitation suggested by some interpretations.

Moreover, the principle of “no compulsion in religion” is fundamentally undermined if leaving Islam invites a death sentence. Threatening apostates with execution makes belief anything but voluntary, contradicting the very notion of free faith affirmed in 2:256.

This tension reveals a deeper inconsistency in the Qur’an’s stance on religious freedom and coercion.

*****

20: The number of angels at Badr

In verse 8:9, Allah reminds Muslims of how he sent a thousand angels to assist them in the Battle of Badr:

(Remember) when you asked help of your Lord, and He answered you, “Indeed, I will reinforce you with a thousand from the angels, following one another.”

However, verse 3:124 mentions three thousand angels being sent down:

(Remember) when you said to the believers, “Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand angels sent down?”

Scholarly Objection:

Islamic scholars argue that the initial reference to one thousand angels in verse 8:9 refers to the first divine reinforcement during the Battle of Badr. However, as the situation developed and the Muslims faced greater adversity, Allah increased the number of angels to three thousand, as mentioned in verse 3:124. In this interpretation, the change in the number of angels is not a contradiction, but a demonstration of the gradual and increasing assistance provided by Allah to His believers at different stages of the battle.

Counter-Argument:

The explanation that angelic reinforcements increased from one thousand to three thousand during the Battle of Badr is speculative, as the Qur’an provides no explicit sequence or development to support this claim. It appears to be a post-hoc attempt to reconcile the differing figures rather than a coherent narrative.

Moreover, invoking specific numbers of angels undermines the concept of Allah’s boundless power. If divine help is unlimited, why specify quantities at all — let alone contradictory ones? This inconsistency challenges the Qur’an’s claim to perfect clarity and internal coherence.